What is nothing?

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, Itoero said:

The absence of something

Fascinating, doesn't that equate to the absence of thought?

[Itoero]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Fascinating, doesn't that equate to the absence of thought?

Why?

[Tub]

Just to add a little to DrP's levity, i would define " nothing " as what my partner finds in her wardrobes when she's looking for something to wear, even though the wardrobes seem to me to be full of clothes.

That apart, could " nothing "  be defined as that which has no perceptible quality or quantity?

[Randolpin]

Nothingness is somewhat already proven by modern cosmology that the universe originate from nothing. One of it's major evidence is the cosmic microwave background radiation which was discovered. So we can hold the idea that there is really nothingness. Space-time itself originated.

[Randolpin]

From the idea above I can infer that:

There was nothing before the bigbang and I will call that nothing as materialistic nothing. I call that as materialistic nothing because it is the origination of spacetime reality. So in order for this spacetime reality to originate from nothing, there should be an entity that is outside spacetime and does transcend spacetime.

[DrP]

16 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

So in order for this spacetime reality to originate from nothing, there should be an entity that is outside spacetime and does transcend spacetime.

How could anyone possibly know? There is no evidence for or against that...  although plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest not.

Also, although it's not my field, I don't think anyone knows what there was before tbb so to say it came from nothing is just guessing or speculating or misunderstanding or misleading.

[Randolpin]

11 minutes ago, DrP said:

How could anyone possibly know? There is no evidence for or against that...  although plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest not.

Also, although it's not my field, I don't think anyone knows what there was before tbb so to say it came from nothing is just guessing or speculating or misunderstanding or misleading.

Ok in order to answer that question let's philosophize:

There is a belief that we can't know the actual nothing. Ok, in ultimate reality there is actually no actual nothing. Just think about this: How can nothing produce something? Quantum fluctuations are not nothing it is something. 

[DrP]

Just now, Randolpin said:

Ok in order to answer that question let's philosophize:

You can philosophise all you like....  you still won't get an answer to the question of what was before the big bang or what is nothing from your musings. Facts and evidence  -  there are none, so no conclusions can be drawn - only speculations made.

3 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

There is a belief that we can't know the actual nothing. Ok, in ultimate reality there is actually no actual nothing. Just think about this: How can nothing produce something? Quantum fluctuations are not nothing it is something. 

belief by who? How do you know and who cares who believes it anyway? some believe the earth is flat or that we never went to the moon or that vaccines are a con to kill people and make money or that there is a super being that is described in a book written over 1600 years ago or that there are cats on Mars. With some of the obvious ones we can debunk suck rubbish and explain why - somethings we can't as we just don't know, it doesn't mean we should give credence to gibberish ideas.

Basically, If we do not know something and have no way of knowing that thing then you cannot claim that you know that thing can you?   

 

Did something come from nothing? Was there already a something?...  Questions like this are totally impossible to answer with our current knowledge so there is no discussion. You can speculate all you like.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

From the idea above I can infer that:

There was nothing before the bigbang 

!

Moderator Note

No. This can't be known or inferred with our present knowledge, so anything you say further is just a soapbox guess. Drop this line or I start tossing posts in the Trash.

 

[Randolpin]

On 8/5/2017 at 0:48 AM, Bender said:

Why an intelligence? You are simply moving the problem. It answers nothing.

Just think about this. If there is no intelligence, the entity (materialistic)  that cause the universe, has a property and thus the property question still arises- Why that is it's property?  which denotes volition. It can't be answered because there is no other entity that cause that entity because that entity is the cause.If there are any then the entity that cause that entity must have also a cause and infinite regression will follow. This is because those entities has a property and so still subject to property question which requires volition. On the other hand intelligence properly answers the property question-"Why that is the property and not the other way around?". That question is asked that way because there are other possibilities of what our universe would look like and why this property exist instead of those other possibilities. The cause should be an entity that can cater all those possibilities and able to made one of those possibilities to exist which denotes volition. Just think about this- "What entity that can cater  possibilities and able to chose a specific possibility like our universe?" Imagine all possibilities can exist but why this specific possibility exist-the universe? If that entity is the multiverse which caters all possibilities, then the property question still arises-"Why multiverse and not the other way around?" So it is not the proper explanation. It still begs the property question which denotes volition because multiverse is inanimate which is not able to decide or choose. Now, let's move to intelligence. Intelligence is able to cater infinite possibilities. Like for example we think of the best island. There are infinite imagination of what a best island would be. Thus intelligence can cater all possibilities. Intelligence can also answer "Why multiverse and not the other way around?" because intelligence is conscious and has volition and avoid infinite regression. Inanimate entities has no volition. Thus intelligence properly answers the property question.

I am not preaching here.I'm just explaining my property argument.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. If you need clarifications, just ask me..

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

Just think about this. If there is no intelligence, the entity (materialistic)  that cause the universe, has a property and thus the property question still arises- Why that is it's property?  which denotes volition.

This is the fallacy of "begging the question" - there is no reason to assume that any such entity exists but you start with that assumption and then precede to demonstrate that entity must be intelligent because it exists.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging_the_Question

Not surprisingly, nearly every explanation of this fallacy includes at least one example of religious "logic".

[beecee]

On 8/9/2017 at 10:57 PM, Randolpin said:

So in order for this spacetime reality to originate from nothing, there should be an entity that is outside spacetime and does transcend spacetime.

That's simply adding speculation. Logically one can ask, so where did this entitiy originate?      The only reasonable correct answer is that we know nothing about the true nature of things before 10-43 seconds. Perhaps again, our definition of nothing needs reappraisal.                     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU

 

[Randolpin]

On 8/16/2017 at 4:12 AM, beecee said:

That's simply adding speculation. Logically one can ask, so where did this entitiy originate?      The only reasonable correct answer is that we know nothing about the true nature of things before 10-43 seconds. Perhaps again, our definition of nothing needs reappraisal.                     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU

 

It has no origin and it exist eternally. It is a necessary entity.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

It has no origin and it exist eternally. It is a necessary entity.

Why is it necessary?

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Randolpin said:

It has no origin and it exist eternally. It is a necessary entity.

We once also thought it was necessary as an explanation for the stars, the planets etc...now we know better and science/cosmology has pushed that mythical necessity back to at least 10-43 seconds after the BB. And of course as our friend Carl Sagan said if you watched my video link, logically it is then valid to apply your "necessary entity" to spacetime and the universe itself or that from whence it arose.

Edited August 18, 2017 by beecee

[Randolpin]

On 8/19/2017 at 4:57 AM, beecee said:

We once also thought it was necessary as an explanation for the stars, the planets etc...now we know better and science/cosmology has pushed that mythical necessity back to at least 10-43 seconds after the BB. And of course as our friend Carl Sagan said if you watched my video link, logically it is then valid to apply your "necessary entity" to spacetime and the universe itself or that from whence it arose.

It is necessary because there is no explanation for why this the property of the universe and not the other way around which denotes volition.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

It is necessary because there is no explanation for why this the property of the universe and not the other way around which denotes volition.

The lack of an alternative explanation does not make yours correct. 

[Randolpin]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

The lack of an alternative explanation does not make yours correct. 

There will never be no alternative explanation. This is the reality we should face.

[Strange]

Just now, Randolpin said:

There will never be no alternative explanation. This is the reality we should face.

That is not a rational argument. All you are saying is "My opinions is right because it is right".

Also, even if there is never an alternative explanation, it does not make your explanation right.

[Randolpin]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

That is not a rational argument. All you are saying is "My opinions is right because it is right".

That is a rational argument imagining something that can possibly exist other than the universe and asking "Why this is the property of the universe and not the other way around?" makes you think that it must denote volition.

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

That is a rational argument imagining something that can possibly exist other than the universe and asking "Why this is the property of the universe and not the other way around?" makes you think that it must denote volition.

It might make you think that. It doesn't make me think that. So it is just opinion/belief. It doesn't matter how convincing you find your belief, it doesn't make it true.

 

[Randolpin]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

It might make you think that. It doesn't make me think that. So it is just opinion/belief. It doesn't matter how convincing you find your belief, it doesn't make it true.

 

It shows that through the philosophy, it is the best explanation. 

[Strange]

Just now, Randolpin said:

It shows that through the philosophy, it is the best explanation. 

Nope. It just shows that you have a particular belief and are unable to provide evidence to support it.

[Randolpin]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nope. It just shows that you have a particular belief and are unable to provide evidence to support it.

There is already evidence in cosmology but, I would rather provide 5 points which I already provided in my other thread. This idea is from Dr. Craig

These are the ff.

1. God is the best explanation why anything at all exist.

2. God is the best  explanation for the origin of the universe.

3. God is the best explanation for the applicability of math in the world.

4. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.

5. God can be personally known and experience.

If you wish to expound them then I will do my best.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Randolpin said:

There is already evidence in cosmology but, I would rather provide 5 points which I already provided in my other thread. This idea is from Dr. Craig

These are the ff.

1. God is the best explanation why anything at all exist.

2. God is the best  explanation for the origin of the universe.

3. God is the best explanation for the applicability of math in the world.

4. God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.

5. God can be personally known and experience.

If you wish to expound them then I will do my best.

Again, these are just your beliefs. I don't believe any of them to be true. There is no reason to.

Please provide the "evidence from cosmology".